Bad Report urges Ottawa to keep ISP traffic throttling in place..
Ottawa shouldn’t give in to demands that Internet providers treat all traffic the same, says a Canadian telecommunications consultancy, Montreal-based SeaBoard Group in a report released Thursday, another salvo in the war on net neutrality. The report comes out as the industry awaits the release of a ruling by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) on a complaint from a group of Internet service providers against Bell Canada’s traffic-shaping efforts. A decision had been expected at the end of September. The CRTC regulates cable and telephones, and therefore could have a say over the Internet. However, it decided in 1999 to be hands-off on new media. In March, Bell began throttling Internet traffic to subscribers and ISP resellers of its DSL service during peak hours, claiming a minority of customers are consuming large amounts of bandwidth to the detriment of the rest. The Canadian Association of Internet Providers quickly demanded the CRTC order Bell to stop slowing traffic, saying the move damages subscribers wanting fast speeds. But Bell argued managing bandwidth makes service equal for all. Meanwhile, the commission is in the middle of what it calls a New Media Project Initiative and re-examining its decision to keep its hands off new media. That review may touch on net neutrality. In the U.S., Comcast throttled BitTorrent traffic until earlier this year, when the Federal Communications Commission ordered it to stop unless it could prove the effort is necessary. Comcast then came up with a new strategy: Impose a download cap of 250Gb a month to each subscriber. SeaBoard says the first public case relating to the Net neutrality debate in France came in 2007 when the French ISP Neuf Cegetel was accused by the videosharing site Dailymotion of throttling access. Neuf Cegetel refuted the claims citing technical difficulties and the subject was eventually dropped.
Canadian groups debate ISP traffic throttling
ISPs ask the CRTC to stop Bell from defying law
Net neutrality: Google vs. Seaboard
I think that Google would have a better understanding of the sources of innovation on the Internet than a consultancy firm like Seaboard who, as far as I know, don’t actually do anything other than comment on other folks’ innovation. Also, as always, who paid for their report? Written by: DT,
Report urges Ottawa to keep ISP traffic throttling in place The bums make all the same kinds of arguments that were used to seal FTA abd NAFTA.
Written by: Rodney,
The SeaBoard Group is unqualified to make recommendations on.. The SeaBoard Group is by no means qualified to comment on this issue. They are a consulting firm whose clients are technology corporations including communication carriers, so they have a financial stake in this and it’s no surprise then that their report sides with the corporate position. Also, the “group” consists of three analysts: 2 economists and 1 marketing/commerce person. So who among them has an understanding of technical aspects of controlling net congestion? Answer: none of them. The report is really just an opinion piece on how market forces always know what’s best (which is what economists always say). It does not investigate Bell’s claim that traffic shaping using deep packet inspection and throttling is the only means to manage congestion (a claim which is entirely false as the Comcast example proves). It does not investigate how deep packet inspection impacts consumer privacy. And it only says that ISPs should be careful not to give themselves an advantage by throttling competitor traffic (which obviously they will as the Telstra example proves). ISPs do have to manage their networks to prevent congestion, but their is absolutely no need for them to employ traffic shaping to do so (upper limits on bandwidth and monthly caps are fair and already in use). They just want to use traffic shaping because it gives them a lot power and they use the excuse of network congestion to justify it. But no one should fall for it, the FCC didn’t. And the SeaBoard group has no credibility on this issue.
Written by: Stephen,
Simply illegal There is already (illegal) Cap on so call unlimited internet. and now they want to illegally degrade a service i alreayd paid? ISPs who throttle need to be fined a couple of millions to set a exemple and prevented from ANY KIND of throttling as it is clearly illegal for them to do so. I paid for 10 Mbiit i want my 10 mbits.. if the ISP oversold it is not mhy problems…. How much do you think the MPAA/RIAA paid the Canadian ISPs to illegally throttling P2P traffic?
Written by: Mectron, from Penticton
Report urges Ottawa to keep ISP traffic throttling in place Mr. Goodey has a good point. Since we are receiving less, we should be charged less. But, we are consumers which equals the bottom of the barrel for these pitiful (mono/duo) polices… This is a typical “Con” job – pun intended. I think the best thing that could come out of this is the fabulous chance to reconnect with nature – I always wanted to take up biking. Plus, I’ll save money, not having to spend any more money on computer / internet gear…
Written by: Dan, from Gatineau, QC
Report urges Ottawa to keep ISP traffic throttling in place If you bought a ton of coal from me and I delivered 700 pounds but demanded full payment how would you feel? Cheated? Well now you know how I feel. Bell, Rogers, Shaw have a monopoly. They want to charge full price but not have to deliver.
Written by: Publis,
Report urges Ottawa to keep ISP traffic throttling in place
“Comcast then came up with a new strategy: Impose a download cap of 250 Gb a month to each subscriber. Some observers think most Canadian providers will soon move to such caps, commonly seen on wireless handsets.” Caps already exist and I could only wish they were so high. Rogers has a cap of 60 GB a month for high speed express internet. CRTC wants to run the Internet like they do television and Radio. Which means Canadians will continue to get screwed out of good content in an effort to protect something that is not very good anyways… Canadian media content.
Written by: Chu,
why should we pay for internet service we are not receiving?.. put a meter on that throttle then—–the more we are deprived of receiving full service——the less we should have to pay for it i do not like paying for something i am not getting——its called fraud.
Written by: yahn goodey,
Selected throttling is illegal censorship Customers are already throttled based on their package. If a customer is paying for a 10Mbit connection, why should their speed be restricted to 5Mbit for certain types of traffic? If they are paying for 10Mbit, they should get 10Mbit. Regardless of how the ISPs are trying to spin this, it all boils down to the fact that they want to be able to make corporate sanctioned traffic be fast, and everything else be slow. This means that big corporations websites will be fast (i.e. Disney, CNN, Google) and small business websites will be slow.”
Bell Canada sued by independent dealers over reduced commissions
MONTREAL — Bell Canada’s (TSX:BCE) independent retail outlets are suing Canada’s largest telecommunications company for $200 million in an interfamily squabble over reduced commissions.
The Independent Communications Dealer Association of Canada, claiming to represent four-fifths of Bell’s independently operated stores, said Tuesday it has begun litigation in Ontario and Quebec, alleging Bell has broken its contract in several ways.
The association, saying it represents 172 store locations under the Bell, Bell World, Bell Mobility, Espace Bell and Bell Mobilite banners, cites “a downward spiral in our relationship that has escalated under Bell’s current management over the last three years.”
Association president Doris Ronca, who owns two Bell World stores in Montreal, said the group has been trying to negotiate with Bell in good faith to resolve the various problems it faces.
“Unfortunately we’ve reached a dead end and have no other choice but to go to the courts,” she said in an interview.
The dealers have knocked heads with Bell before, and purused a $135 million lawsuit in 2006 against the phone giant over a failed move by the dealers to turn their network into an income trust.
They had hoped to combine their stores in one business and float it on the stock market, but the phone company vetoed the plan.
During much of 2005, income trusts were a hot Bay Street strategy that generated tax advantages for companies that turned themselves into trusts. In late 2006, the Conservative government imposed a tax on new trusts beginning in 2011 that curbed the sector.
At the time, Bell said it would vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.
Ronca accused Bell of years of mismanagement that has resulted in losing customer and investor brand loyalty and falling from first to third place in the wireless marketplace.
Bell is now punishing its own exclusive dealer channel by not honouring agreements and systematically destroying the competitiveness, reputations and the value of businesses that have been built over 20 years, said Ronca.
“This didn’t just start yesterday. It’s been a problem for several years now.”
The litigation claims Bell has ignored a commitment in March to leave dealers’ fees and commissions untouched until mid-2009.
It alleges that Bell has eliminated until December the payment of commissions for customers that replace handsets and renew contracts. These commissions account for up to 70 per cent of an outlet’s revenues.
It also says commissions for new product sales have been cut by between 10 per cent and 20 per cent.
The impact will be the layoff of more than 300 employees at stores in Quebec and Ontario as they lose $17.5 million in commissions until December, Ronca said.
The association says Bell is providing more lucrative incentives to non-exclusive retailers such as Wireless Wave, Best Buy and Future Shop.
And it says Bell’s direct marketing is undercutting the dealer chain.
The lawsuits claim over $200 million in damages, demand that Bell honour its current agreements, and seek the right to sell products from competitors like Telus, Rogers and new entrants in the mobile-phone business.
Bell Canada couldn’t be immediately reached for comment, but is expected to respond to the lawsuit later Tuesday.
The company’s parent BCE Inc. (TSX:BCE) is in the final stages of completing its $52 billion takeover by an investment group led by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board and its U.S. partners.
Bell Canada Inc.’s independent retailers are suing the company for years of “abusive, arbitrary” business practices that include changing their contracted commissions. The Independent Communications Dealer Association of Canada, which represents 172, or 80 per cent, of Bell’s independent stores, announced on Tuesday it had filed suit against the company for three years of “not honouring agreements and systematically destroying our competitiveness, reputations and the value of our businesses that we have built, some of us for over 20 years,” the group said in a statement. The retailers seek more than $200 million in damages against the company as well as a reversal of all competitive measures listed in its suit, and a commitment to honour its current contract. “Once we sign a contract, we expect that contract to be honoured, but instead, year over year, they make changes to it without our agreement,” said CDAC vice-president Rick Umbrio. “All we’re asking is for Bell to honour their commitments and agreements. We want to be able to negotiate with Bell, put something in writing and they honour it, not change it on the fly.” The final straw in the “downward spiral” of their relationship, Umbrio said, came recently when Bell decided to cut commissions dealers earn on upgrading customers to new phones. The retailers had signed a contract with Bell in March that would leave their commissions untouched until June, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/10/21/tech-bell.html
and I already have even been saying how bad Bell is now in regard to keeping contractual agreements even for a whole year now too on the net too.